To do what, exactly? If we wanted to stop terrorism, why do we still borrow money and buy oil from the Saudis?
So, the country is in a state of chaos. Are we to just leave it that way?
It was in chaos before and we didn't seem to care much. That is, until the Soviets wanted to invade the country. That's when we created the jihadists we are fighting today. I'm just saying that we seem to create more chaos the more we try to control what foreign countries do.
That's very true, and that has been pointed out as well. The Soviets not only created a reason for jihadists to exist our CIA helped train them.
Still, Obama supported an increase in funding for both wars even though he stated that he would have voted against the initial funding to begin with. His stated reason? You don't abandon the troops once the war has started.
Is it wise to simply cut off funding and bring them all home right away?
My original question was 'put in another 40,000 troops to do what?' No one seems to have a concrete answer.
McChrystal has stated that his aim is to bring stability and a stable national government to the country. Things which have never existed before in Afghanistan.
That is the stated goal.
Creating something in a foreign country that has never existed there before? Do you that is an attainable goal?
I have no idea. This was a discussion started in a thread about gay marriage. I started it here because a) I didn't want the other topic to get side-tracked and b) it really needs to be discussed.
So the question is "do we have the right to drag Afghanistan, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century? What if we don't?
Here is an interesting time line that covers the history of Afghanistan.
Well that depends. What century is Afghanistan in now?
I believe Obama will look in to the election results first to see who will make up the new Afghanistan Government and how to deal with corruption.
It would seem useless to send troops to help a murdering pack of bent politicians who will do nothing but keep creating situations to protect their bribes.
The Afghan Government are as bad as the Taliban!
As bad or worse. At least the Taliban claims a religious reason.
We'll see. Karzai did okay marital rape which is more than bad enough, but between him and the folks who insist on executing women for being raped, throwing acid at schoolgirls, beating women to death because they find their burkas suffocating, or banning women from workplaces and then also punishing them when they try the only means left available to support their children, Karzai seems to me like the lesser of the two evils.
That being said, the lesser of two evils is still not good.
It certainly is a mess. No doubt about it. But the question is do we leave a mess or put 40,000 more troops in to try to fix the mess?
They did stuff like that in Rwanda as well. But we didn't do anything about it because Rwanda isn't near the Caspian Sea, which has been the main U.S. military acquisition target since the Soviets folded.
And if we did intervene in the Rwandan conflict, we would have been derided for trying to play the role of world police.
No he should not. He ran on a platform for ending these wars. Further you are fighting an unconventional force. Traditional combat theory does not apply here. Numbers don't matter. Large occupation forces simply provide large easy targets in guerella warfare scenarios. Reduce, rethink and redistribute. Go to countries that seem to be doing a good job at rooting out terrorist. Israel and Germany come to mind here.
Obama is having a hard time making this decision because 22 Congressmen/woman signed a bill not to fund any more troops. In my opinion we are waisting our time and money.
Obama has declared that he will make no decision regarding an increase in troop strength until Afghanistan has a stable government.
Karzi has been presented with evidence that 1.2 million votes were invalid. This would put him below the 50% of votes required for a clear win. It also gives Abdullah Abdullah a slightly better advantage, but he too is below the 50% threshold.
This means there SHOULD be a runoff election, but Karzi is resisting this notion by attempting to offer Abdullah some token government office instead.
Add to this that the NATO commander agrees that troop strength should remain as it is until there's a stable government.
If he stops funding the wars and stops nursefeeding the Fortune 100, we can pay for health care, education, infrastructure, you know, all those things that make a first world country, uhm, first.
I would rather he did not send any more troops....enough is enough.
Why do we always have to be the world police?? Bring the boys home NOW! Put them to work protecting our boarders.
Good one...K Partin...Weren't we over there originally to take out Osama Bin Ladin...What happened to that objective...No one answers that. He has either passed-on, taken the first Space Shuttle out of here...or could be living next door to anyone on here?
by Credence2 2 months ago
A little backgroundI am a bit disturbed that our Secy of State sees fit to have American troops play a role as an occupying army not acceding to the request of the host nation, this nation notin a state of war with the US.How do we justify it?Hopefully this article and the position taken by the US...
by TimTurner 10 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For all of you who support Obama, I'm assuming you will be against this...
by rhamson 9 years ago
With the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by US troops and recent sanctions being considered in Iran, who put the US in charge of cleaning up these countries and instituting democracy as the government that should rule these nations?The US has a perfect right to defend itself from enemies without...
by IzzyM 8 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … kdown.htmlUh-oh, this is so bad. There will be repercussions.. sorry if someone posted already about this, but I didn't see it earlier.
by Army Infantry Mom 9 years ago
Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops - http://bit.ly/3iD702 Obama better get on his job, quit lally gagging around on late night talk shows and decide what hes going to do - Either A - Give McCrystal EVERYTHING he asked for,..NOW !!!!orB - Get the F*ck Out Now...
by Scott Belford 15 months ago
A comment I just read says it succinctly"By drawing down US forces in Syria to zero and Afghanistan to half, he has exposed his paltry grasp on what actually keeps Americans, their interests, and global stability on an even keel." - Nic Robertson
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|